Related

From its early beginnings, feminism was a young women’s movement. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women — the original feminists — understood that the rights of women cannot be built on the broken backs of unborn children. Anthony called abortion “child murder.” Paul, author of the original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that “abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”

So the pro-life movement hasn’t changed the meaning of feminism, as has been suggested. It was the neo-feminists of the 1960s and ’70s who asked women to prize abortion as the pathway to equality.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, along with a group of mostly Democratic women, started the Susan B. Anthony List in 1992, the so-called Year of the Woman, when numerous pro-choice women were elected to Congress. Dannenfelser, then in her mid-20s, saw a need to support more pro-life women running for elected office. Twenty years since the organization’s founding, we now have two pro-life women in the Senate, 17 in the House, four in governorships and hundreds more in state legislatures.

Pro-life feminism has captivated a new generation of young women who reject the illusion that to be pro-woman is to be pro-choice. Gallup polling showed that among 18-to-29-year-olds, there was a 5% increase in those labeling themselves “pro-life” between 2007–08 and 2009–10. The past few years have seen the emergence of young leaders like Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America, who is responsible for organizing more than 675 pro-life groups on college campuses across the nation, and Lila Rose of Live Action, whose undercover video work has forced the abortion industry to confront and amend practices it cannot defend, as well as dozens of other future leaders who have assisted our organization as staff members and interns. During the past two summers we’ve had young female leaders join the SBA List from Stanford, Georgetown, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the University of California, Berkeley. These passionate defenders of women and unborn children return to their campuses ready to lead pro-life groups and educate their classmates on the tragedy of abortion.

Not only does this young generation of pro-life women shun the notion that abortion somehow liberates women; it views abortion as the civil- and human-rights cause of our day. Abortion is an injustice that permeates our society. Forty years after Roe v. Wade, we realize that a third of our peers are not here to share our progress and our hopes. It is our loss as well as theirs.

In his letter from a Birmingham, Ala., jail, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” It is in this same spirit of King and the original feminists that young pro-life women are rising up in increasing numbers to say abortion is a radical injustice that affects us all and must end. Achieving this will require more efforts to extend our understanding of the equal rights of the disabled unborn, prevent rape and make this crime against women a thing of the past, expand adoption and make the benefits of modern prenatal care and specialties like fetal surgery more available, so that even younger and sicker children can be spared an early death.

Our fight transcends elections and legislative battles because our fight is in our hearts. This is why, 40 years after Roe, our movement is still growing. We won’t give up; we can’t give up. Our fight is for life.

The assertion is false that "the neo-feminists of the 1960s and ’70s ... asked women to prize abortion as the pathway to equality." Maybe you are not old enough to remember, but abortion was in no way "prized." What the feminist movement of the 1960s and '70s did was to shine a light on the conditions of "back alley" abortions and demand that women have access to safe, legal means of terminating a pregnancy. How quickly we as a society forget what it was like when abortion was illegal.

This is our first task: caring for our children. If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right. That's how as a society, we will be judged; and by that measure, can we honestly say that we're doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?

I've been reflecting on this the past few days, and if we're honest with ourselves, the answer is no.

These tragedies must end. We will be told the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. But that can't be an excuse for inaction. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, surely we have an obligation to try.

Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

I guess I'm unique in that I would never have an abortion if it was
the result of consensual sex. Even if the pregnancy would kill me. Since
I consented to sex, in my opinion, I should do everything possible to
save that child because it exists because of me.

However,
if I got pregnant from being raped, I do everything in my power to
procure an abortion for myself. I don't care if it was legal or not or
if it was risky. I'd simply induce a miscarriage at home, like women in my fathers home country. I would never under any
circumstances, endure the pain and humiliation of giving birth to my
rapists child. I'm not
obligated to take responsibility for my rapists actions, and that
includes any of his creations. My organs are mine, my rights are mine
and I won't have them subjugated because I was raped. I would not ruin
my body, my life and my sanity because of I was raped. Think of me what you will, because in that case I really don't care.

The crowd the believes the earth is 6000 years old shouldnt be leading any movement... They should be held accountable for the inability to divorce their faith from the ability to reason. Anybody whom is driven by faith to the point of rejecting decent science should be rightly considered incompetent to think.

If you allow women to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion you have a freedom develop... Women may or may not choose abortion but they should have the right to choose rather than having some toxic faith-heads ram their beliefs down their throats.

While feminism, like any broad philosophy and political movement that millions of people adhere to, has many points of view and might not be mutually exclusive with being anti-abortion, abortion is not the only or essential aspect of feminism.

Feminism is pro-life, the best possible life for men, women and children. And denying women around the world the right to make decisions about their bodies and lives, as well as denying them adequate sexual and reproductive healthcare, and even making decisions that precipitate their death can not in any way shape or form be considered feminism. The unborn do not have rights, they do not exist, but women and born children do. Until they have access to all their rights, achieving this must take priority.

How quickly indeed. Making it illegal wouldn't somehow magically stop some women from wanting and having an abortion. Having it illegal leads to back ally abortions (some of which left the women infertile even though she wanted children later). It would be like proabition. We talked about the sin of drinking, but making it illegal didn't stop people from drinking.

Instead of declaring someone evil for wanting an abortion, ask them why they want one. Abortions are horrible, but they won't stop until women choose not to have them. Just think about it, if we could find way to prevent women from being in the situations that cause them to choose to have an abortion, then it wouldn't matter if they were legal because they wouldn't happen.

@Natalia Uhhh, life is not all black and white. Even when conceived in rape that child is still yours. He/she is just a victim, just as you are (God forbid of course). Why take it out on the child?

Abortion doesn't undo rape. Whether you kill that child or not horrors of rape will still haunts until you'll have enough courage to look life in the eyes again. But when you'll add guilt of murdering a child to the aftermath of a rape you sentencing yourself to more then one person can handle. As you grow old especially after you'll carry your wanted child full term, you won't be able not to think about a child whose life you terminated.

My father used to beat my dear Mother, chase her around with a knife. However my oldest brother, child conceived from that man saved us all during a massacre He was barely 24 years old at the time, standing up to an angry mob to save his mother and 2 sisters. From an abusive dead beat man was born a staff Sergeant / special forces and a true hero.

@Hadrewsky You're the one who sounds toxic. And seriously illiterate. You might want to think twice before suggesting that someone whose beliefs differ from yours is lacking in intelligence or education. Or at least learn to read and write first.

@Hadrewsky Fine. I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist who's completed college Biology. I'll lead the anti-abortion movement. I'll lead it because the "freedom" to kill one's child in utero is not a freedom that should be legal but a crime that is a violation of basic human rights. Abortion is child abuse.

Elective abortion is not a decision about a woman's body-it is making the decision to harm/kill her child's body. It is not healthcare. Healthcare doesn't kill. It heals. That's why it's HEALthcare. Gestating children SHOULD have rights. They DO exist. They are not hallucinations or holograms. The life cycle of a sexually-reproducing organism begins at amphimixis. That is the point at which at least one new organism exists, even in human beings. We are not exempt from biological reality due to personal preference or expediency. Abortion is denying the basic right to live of a very young child. It is a human rights violation, and an extreme form of child abuse.

Xal if you do not want an abortion that is fine... But to subjugate others to hold your views and FORCE them into having birth is fascism via faith.

You do not have any right to force others to believe a ball of cells without a nervous system is a person... a Fetus is not a person any even later on when it might feel pain we are talking about being able to suffer less than a rabbit would - people are self aware and our products are not.... Regardless you may have your own views but force them onto nobody.

@xalisae@AnneMolinas Women are routinely denied life saving healthcare, i.e. cancer treatment for one, because there is a fetus, maybe a few weeks old and die. Look at what happened recently in Ireland. Doctors are not charged with murder for denying a woman life-saving treatment. They make decisions about people's lives. Governments make decision that affect the health and life of millions of people around the globe. Rape, sexual abuse, invasive abortion policies are all decisions made for women about her body that effect her entire life. A fetus may exist, but it is not a person or a child. There is no biological reality, this is just some people's personal preference. Do some research and reflect a bit on what life really means in our society.

@lookitup@Joyrunr I hope that you live yours without arrogantly taking your child's life because you think you're so great they deserve to die for you...and then calling that just a "personal medical decision".

@xalisae@Hadrewsky@AnneMolinasDang
Anne, you just got pwned! read that whole thing and have to say, your
side was not nearly as convincing. And poor Hadrewsky is just being a
plain old moron. INSULT YOUR WAY TO VICTORY!!!!

@Hadrewsky@xalisae@AnneMolinas it's "xalisae"-lower case "x". Enforcing laws against child abuse is not "subjugation". There is no faith involved in my fight against child abuse via death by abortion. There is no "force" involved in passing laws against abortion-pregnancy naturally sustains itself barring illness and naturally culminates in birth on its own. The only "force" involved in this argument is the "force" applied to a gestating child when killing them in the abortion procedure.

You do not have the RIGHT to characterize a new living human organism-A HUMAN BEING/PERSON BY DEFINITION-as anything less than what/who they are. "Suffering" fits nowhere into the definition of what a human being/person is. Our children are not "our products"-they are new human beings with basic human rights, not biological masses to be disposed of as we see fit. Human beings are different than other animals, and the second rabbits pass laws in rabbit congress against kit abuse, I'll reconsider your point.

"...you may have your own views but force them onto nobody."

The same could be said for those in support of abortion. Abortion forces death onto those who are viewed as nothing but "balls of cells" by others.

@AnneMolinas@EvgeniaBanovich "I think we can agree to
disagree with the understanding that there are no absolutes, either in science,
data collection and statistics, law or any other human generated information
and that none of us have access to absolute truths, only our perception of a
partial reality."

I disagree emphatically. There is objective truth, and science is the device with which to measure and inventory it. Insisting that there is no objective truth and everyone should just be free to do as they feel is a terrible, TERRIBLE notion, and only leads to destruction.

Evgenia, I'm sorry for not
noting your name correctly. I respect your personal experience and do not wish
for anyone to live with that kind of violence. Your experiences influence your
worldview as do mine.

I do not think that
international and regional human rights protection systems, UN organizations,
Conventions, international NGOS, etc. are feminist organizations, and they seem
to agree that women, and particularly girls, in greater numbers face more
violent situations, both personal and structural, which doesn't mean that men
don't as well.

In none of my responses have
I mentioned anything about men or women being better, and therefore I don not
think any assumptions can be made about my understanding of feminism or that it
can be labeled as a particular brand.

I think we can agree to
disagree with the understanding that there are no absolutes, either in science,
data collection and statistics, law or any other human generated information
and that none of us have access to absolute truths, only our perception of a
partial reality.

I do respect your
convictions. Thank you for the dialogue.

Anne

"The truth was a mirror in the hands of God. It fell, and
broke into pieces. Everybody took a piece of it, and they looked at it and
thought they had the truth."

My name is Evgenia, not Elena, and my view is absolutely scientific, as there're multiple studies, which absolutely support my empirical findings about women being more abusive than men.

The reasons why more women seek medical help as a result of abuse are as follows: A. physical abuse by men understandably does more damage (men are stronger than women on average) and B. abused men are heavily stigmatized in our society, which believes that only women can be abused, so most abused men simply don't report the abuse.

At the same time:

My father was heavily physically abused as a child by his mother and his older sister.

My mother's mother physically abused her to the point of once breaking her nose (my mother's father, by contrast, never did anything like that to her)

My mother physically and emotionally abused me and last tried to slap me when I was 18 (shortly after which I ran away from home).

My extremely non-abusive and faithful husband was physically abused (cut multiple times with a knife) by his cheating wife, who later tried to hit me too (so my husband, to his horror, observed a very nasty physical fight between us.)

And these are not exceptions. They are the rule. And giving the woman the right to kill her child in utero so that she cannot abuse him or her later, to me, is not the answer to the problem of abusive women.

The women I've met in my life were in no way better than men. And while I don't believe than men are better than women, I will not have any of your "women are better" brand of feminism, either.

There's absolutely no basis in the US Constitution to the right to privacy, let alone to abortion (the US Supreme Court Justices saying so, as we have already established, does not a just decision make).

If abortion is restricted in the US, the number of resulting maternal deaths will not even closely approximate the number of humans killed yearly (1 210 000 in 2008) as a result of legalized abortion.

There's nothing far fetched about comparing decisions legalizing the killing of 1 210 000 humans in utero in 2008 to the decisions, which upheld segregation, slavery and creation of concentration camps.

@AnneMolinas@xalisae@EvgeniaBanovich I don't have a fear of death. I've had a good run, even at this point in my life. I just think other people should be allowed to have the same kinda shot at a run like mine that I've been given. "...obsessive fantasizing about what the imaginary lives of all the unborn, potential lives that never manifest might be like"-WOW. SOOO much wrong with that statement. Where to begin?!

1.) YOU are the one talking about quality of life. I have no illusions about this issue. I'm sure some lives of children born once killing them becomes illegal once more will be terrible. But it is having the chance for that life NOT to be a terrible one that makes it all worthwhile, for them all. By worrying so much about "quality of life" YOU are the one with fantasies about what an unborn child's life might end up as, to the point you think your fantasies legitimize having the child killed before they can live that long. I don't think hypotheticals about what that child's life *might* be like are relevant when it comes to a government protecting its citizenry.

2.) "...potential lives that never manifest..." How many times must we explain this to you in scientific terms?! There is no "potential life" involved in abortion. If there weren't already a new, living human being present, there would be no abortion required to kill the child and remove him or her. After the sperm and egg combine at amphimixis, the life cycle of a very real, very actual new living human being has manifest.

3.) Have you had any Biology AT ALL? You *do* realize that ova and spermatozoa are gametes that belong to an organism and ARE NOT new living organisms themselves? Do you know what an "organism" even is? If you want to talk about "potential lives", those cells are the closest things to fit that description. However, no one here is on any great crusade to save the gametes, lady. We're informed sufficiently to know the difference.

"Belligerency isn't going to get you[sic] point across."

Well, I've tried reason, logic, and science, to no avail. If those nor belligerency will work, I'm afraid I'm coming to the end of the list of tools at my disposal. Pray tell, what *WILL* get my point across for you?

@AnneMolinas@xalisae@EvgeniaBanovich Sure. Just like the illegal abortion rate in Mexico was astronomical until they legalized it-after legalization it was apparent that the numbers which had been reported by Guttmacher & others were not only grossly inflated, but IMPOSSIBLE.

I'm not assuming the best possible scenario. I'm explaining to you that killing someone is never a solution to a worst possible scenario. I'm imposing nothing but a protection of the lives of human beings from the moment their lives begin as much as the law would be capable. I'm not really concerned about your opinion of "foolish"-you don't even seem to be able to comprehend the difference between cells that are alive and an entire organism that is alive. And apparently also are not aware that I've not been defining things as "the ultimate dictionary"-just copy/pasting from dictionaries that have already been invented and assembled. You *are* aware dictionaries have already been compiled, right? And not by me?

@xalisae@AnneMolinas@EvgeniaBanovich The underreported numbers are from the Paraguayan Ministry of Health, you can check their website, based on cases reported internally, and can only be underreported due to the impossibility of reporting on what people feel the need to hide and can't be known.

And availability of medical care, advanced or not, is an issue. You are assuming the best possible scenario for everyone, which is not a reality. You are imposing hypothetical and impossible conditions on an imperfect world. That, in my opinion is foolish.

Please, you do not have a monopoly on information. Nor are you the ultimate dictionary that can define words for all of us.

And you might want to work on your fear of death and obsessive fantasizing about what the imaginary lives of all the unborn, potential lives that never manifest might be like, maybe including all the unfertilized eggs and sperms, which are also life, if only they did unite, that you could save.

@AnneMolinas@xalisae Spare me your bumper-sticker logic. Quality of life is non-existent if you're dead. Women's lives matter-but so do their children's at every age and every stage. "Fight a real cause"-I am. And I'm glad my daughter's finally getting old enough to join me. She's even more motivated than I am, and understandably so when you consider her father wanted me to kill her on the abortionist's table.

Go ahead and fight for "quality of life". I'll be fight for LIFE first and foremost, since you can't have ANY quality if it's been taken from you.

The reason so much focus is being put upon that one brief moment of the life cycle is because it's the only point currently in my country that it's legal for a parent to have their young child killed. You'll find focus to shift once that changes.

Comparing a court decision which refused to consider an innocent party whose life was in question thus giving another party the right to dispose of them as if they were nothing more than medical waste. And calling that a "right to privacy".

@AnneMolinas@EvgeniaBanovich It is only a "denial of rights" if one assumes that abortion is somehow an inalienable right, which is what this entire debate is about. I maintain that the right to life is a truly inalienable right, and no right I possess supersedes my minor child's right to live, regardless of their age, stage of development, location, etc.

The legal "right" to abort a child is discrimination in and of itself-discrimination against a certain segment of minor children which has given parents the legal right to shirk duties and responsibilities to the minor child of whom they have default custody at the cost of that child's life. Such treatment of a child after birth would never be acceptable, and this is discrimination.

Abortion should be illegal, period-whether you are rich or poor. Having my daughter killed when she was in utero wouldn't have been any more acceptable because I was poor, homeless, and her father was abusive than it would've been to a wealthy person living in the better part of town having their gestating child killed simply because they want to avoid childbirth or having to place for adoption.

I am an American feminist. I think for myself, and as a consequence have been called any number of misogynist slurs from old-school establishment feminists. The "under-reported numbers" have been proven to be grossly inflated in areas where abortion has been criminilized and then legalized. I don't care to re-paste the link to the study showing the (intentional?) disingenuousness of organizations like Guttmacher Institute. If you care to read up on it, you'll have to find the link to the study yourself. I doubt you would've read it anyway.

"I retract do not exist, I
realize it is not accurate. Embryos and fetuses exist, they are life."

And this statement is disingenuous on YOUR part. Not only are human embryos/fetuses life, they are ALIVE. They are new, living human organisms, which by definition means they are human beings/persons. This is weaseling word-twisting on your part.

"...not viable outside the mother until around 26
weeks."

"viability" is an external idea to any given human being. Some human beings are not viable without continued life support assistance, and the viability of any given human being varies depending upon their condition and the environment they exist in at any given time. Also, your information about current age of viability is dated (or is it just because that's what it happens to be in your country, due to lack of advanced medical care? See how foolish basing your concepts of humanity on an external notion like "viability" is?) considering it's becoming more and more common in developed countries around the world to see premature infants born at even 21 weeks surviving and eventually thriving.

Your witnessing Elena, of women being more abusive then men,
is totally contradicted by statistical data and therefore unscientific.

The cases I mention, while maybe not the majority, are not
extreme, they happen quite frequently. Discrimination and denying rights
because the case is perceived as extreme cannot be justified.

Yes, legal abortion means that there does not have to be an
"allowable" cause, and US women have access to abortion on demand, if
they happen to live in a State that has not done their best to deny this legal
right and can actually access services.

Unfortunately, it is easy to deny the rights of people who
find themselves in extreme situations, including poverty, and in the end, they
are the ones who suffer because more affluent people have more access to
resolving certain problems.

I am an American feminist --though I think for myself, I do
not espouse a particular ideology-- but I live in Paraguay and work with Latin
American feminists who witness the effects of criminalized abortion, it is the
second cause of maternal deaths in the country, according to official,
underreported data, and who also believe, to differing extents, that women's
rights include access to legal and safe abortion.

I retract do not exist, I
realize it is not accurate. Embryos and fetuses exist, they are life. However
they are not persons and are not viable outside the mother until around 26
weeks. Babies are totally dependent from birth to 5 yrs-10yrs, legally
dependent until 18 years and all of us are interdependent for the rest of our
lives. At any time during the life cycle many circumstances, many by human intervention,
can interrupt that life. There is no explanation as to why so much focus is put
on that one brief moment of the life cycle as if it were the sum total of life.
Well, actually, my particular brand of feminism does, in part, offer an
explanation.

And comparing a court
decision that upholds a woman's right to privacy to upholding slavery and
racial and ethnic discrimination is so far fetched.

@AnneMolinas@EvgeniaBanovich I wish! Xalisae is absolutely right again: I'm clearly comparing all US court decisions condoning a grave injustice that is abortion on demand to the landmark US Supreme Court decisions condoning such other grave injustices as slavery (Dred Scott v. Sandford), racial segregation (Plessy vs. Ferguson) and creation of concentration (or, in the more politically correct language, internment) camps for the US citizens of Japanese descent (Korematsu v. United States).

@AnneMolinas@EvgeniaBanovich No, she didn't. She said "To me, most US court decisions ON THIS MATTER (abortion) are no more just than the decisions of the US Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandform, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, etc."

That first part encompasses Roe v. Wade, since legal abortion is the "this matter" about which we were talking.

@AnneMolinas@EvgeniaBanovich Kindly do not confuse justice with an opinion of judges. To me, most US court decisions on this matter are no more just than the decisions of the US Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandform, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, etc.

As a woman, who's witnessed more physical and phycological abuse perpetrated by women against men and children than by men against women and children, I do not subscribe to the mainstream US feminism you seem to espouse.

Nor do I think that abuse of women justifies more abuse by women of the weakest humans possible.

Nor do I think that the extreme cases, you're referring to (which constitute a tiny percentage of all abortions in the US), justify abortion on demand (most of abortions performed are NOT the cases you're emphasizing).

You disagree with me? That's fine by me. I know exactly where you're coming from, as I'm from Russia, where abortion is the norm, and so I used to be deeply pro-abortionist by default.

I see you showing zero compassion towards the several thousand human beings killed every single day as a result of abortion. How can women expect compassion, if we're being so callous to the humans, who depend on us for survival?

Finally, no, I will not stop defending the cause of humanity just because you or anyone - feminist or otherwise - wants me to.

The Supreme Court in Colombia ruled that rape was an
allowable cause for abortion and against the argument that women would say they
were raped just to get an abortion, stating that women's rights could not be denied
because of hypothetical abuse of the law. First protection of rights and then
case by case review of abuse, not burden of proof to access rights. That is
justice.

@EvgeniaBanovich@AnneMolinas You repeat your tired argument, I'll repeat mine. Abortion is not wrong. Your opinion on life is your opinion and your arguments have no more scientific or moral validity than mine. In my opinion minimizing crimes against women, and the little that is done in our society to rectify these crimes, and elevating non-viable life over living human beings is immoral and only shows how well ingrained patriarchal values that treat women as less than human are. When your argument actually shows some compassion and answers for stopping the violence --including not being allowed to make decisions about one's body-- that women, adolescents and children suffer daily, including dying, maybe I can take them seriously.

It's not just men's "choices?" to abuse women, it is a legal systems and cultural attitudes that make women continue to suffer and take the blame and responsibility when violence does happen, and it happens all too often, that is the problem. A problem that your opinion contributes to.

What about women who are denied medical treatment and die because they are pregnant? 10, 11 year old girls forced to give birth. Adolescents under 15 years old have 4 times more probability of dying from pregnancy or turning to unsafe abortions. In your opinion their rights are negotiable? The problem with restricting abortion is that then people who think like you make it impossible for women to get access to abortions even when it is deemed "allowable".

@AnneMolinas "Do some research and reflect a bit on what life really means in our society." Unlike your own position on the subject ("The unborn do not have rights, they do not exist", "A fetus may exist" - regardless of your perception, the scientific fact happens to be that humans DO very much exist in utero, even when denied human rights by society), Xalisae's stance appears very well-researched and shows a great deal of reflection on what life really means. Fortunately, increasingly more people have been coming to the realization that we cannot rectify one wrong (some men's choice to abuse women, which is criminalized in our society) with an even greater wrong (legalizing every woman's unrestricted choice to kill humans in utero).

I remain impressed by the strength of your arguments and effort! And I continue to be amazed by our opponents, who claim the moral and scientific high ground on this issue, all the while continuing to resort to the most unscientific and cynical arguments and the lowest ad hominem attacks possible.

I think what you're doing here is very important, as you're fighting our opponents' propaganda with excellent reasoning and hard facts.

I have to say good-bye for now, for this conversation, as interesting as it has been to follow and to participate in, can't keep me here forever.

I'll be happy to keep in touch with you on Facebook :).

Sincerely,

Evgenia Banovich

P.S.: Pro-life cause is a cause absolutely worth fighting for in every non-violent way possible :)).

@lookitup@xalisae@Joyrunr "Can you cuddle them" is not a scientific threshold for deeming one not human and, therefore, not deserving the right to life. Nor did the notion of "cuddling" prevent Obama from refusing human rights to those humans, who survived abortions and were, thus, clearly capable of being cuddled.

@lookitup@xalisae@Joyrunr the life of every "actual child" begins at amphimixis. Your ignorance of basic developmental biology is not MY problem, it's yours. Offspring = child, by dictionary definition, at every age and every stage of life. Human lives are not choices to be nurtured or killed as desired by their parents. They're human beings with rights, starting with the basic right to live.

@xalisae@lookitup@Joyrunr Your confusion of a z/e/f with an actual child is unfortunate but it's also your issue and no one else's. That's why YOU get the choice when it is YOUR pregnancy, just like everyone else.